 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 23 Feb 13 - 03:21 PM Here's the other part of the ill-thought-out equation: If there is only 7%-10% of usable product in tar sands what happens to the other 90% of the material that comes down the pipeline??? Keep in mind that it will be polluted... Where do you put it??? How do you get it there??? Talk about billion$$$... Who pays for that clean-up when the time comes where that land is toxic and seeping into nearby water supplies??? Hey, I don't give a rat's ass if folks will be cold in Canada working at a refinery... Their comfort shouldn't over-ride common sense... Hey, there are jobs in some mighty cold places now that people are very happy to have... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 23 Feb 13 - 03:03 PM "Raw" or "Refined," the product still has to be moved and that is what pipelines do. Major pipelines aleady criss-cross North America; all are equipped with shut-off valves to prevent major leaks. Refining is directed at particular needs; the great variety of refineries for chemical and energy needs are on the Gulf Coast. The tar oil sands are the largest easily accessible reserve in North America, economically and geographically. They will be used. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: bobad Date: 23 Feb 13 - 02:07 PM "Which place would you rather live or work if you carried a wrench and worked outside in a refinery?" Since you asked I'd rather be in a country that has universal, tax payer funded health care and fewer gun toting psychos. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: pdq Date: 23 Feb 13 - 01:55 PM It's going to be 74o F in Houston today. Below zero in southern Canada tonight. Which place would you rather live or work if you carried a wrench and worked outside in a refinery? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: bobad Date: 23 Feb 13 - 01:44 PM You ask a legitimate question Bobert, one I have asked myself. This article provides some answers to the question: Should Canada refine its own oilsands bitumen? Some excerpts: "Oil refining is a volatile, low-margin business, they say, and it's far cheaper and much simpler to export crude to countries that already have refineries ready and willing to process it, particularly the United States and China. "It gets a lot of points to say, 'We've got to do things at home, we've got to be independent, we ought to not depend on somebody who could change their mind,' but as an economic matter, it doesn't really make sense, or we would have been doing it," says Michal Moore, a professor at the University of Calgary's public policy school. "My guess is that under current circumstances ... that ship probably has sailed." **************************************************************************************** "Building a new refinery would be a long and expensive proposition. Such a facility would cost billions of dollars and likely take a decade to obtain the necessary government approvals and build, says Moore." *************************************************************************************** It's more complicated to export refined products, rather than simply exporting raw crude, because every jurisdiction has different standards for fuels to meet, says Greg Stringham of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. "Most refineries usually refine close to their market because of the gasoline and fuel specifications in each of those areas," says Stringham. "So that's why it leans to, let's move the crude around." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: gnu Date: 23 Feb 13 - 01:21 PM Q makes valid points (as usual). I especially like the point referring to "old, tired pipelines". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 23 Feb 13 - 01:12 PM No breast beating, Q... Just askin' for sanity... The pipeliners haven't thought this thing thru... Running this stuff right thru major population centers and thru the drinking water supply for the entire middle of the country is insane... This entire pipeline is just another political proxy war by the Obama Hate Brigade, the Koch brothers, Dick Armey, the Tea Party, etc... There is no reason on Earth why we can't turn this over to a large group of scientists, environmentalists, planners and the best minds available to see if this thing makes any sense... On the surface, it doesn't... Like I have asked two or three times now... Why not build a refinery where the stuff is so that Canada is shipping out usable product??? Huh??? What's this big hurry to do something which will more than likely be looked back upon as one of the largest engineering boondoggles of all time??? But seems that the pipeliners won't answer my questions which to me means that they haven't really thought this thing thru other than using it to poke at Obama??? That's stupid policy... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 23 Feb 13 - 12:41 PM All of the ineffectual breast-beating does not change the fact that coal and petroleum needs by industry and the people will continue to be filled by bitumen mining and liquid petroleum production for at least 50 years in the future, and will continue long after that for many needs. Energy is just part of the picture; everything from take-out containers to airplanes and wheeled-transport use plastics derived in part from bitumen and petroleum. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 23 Feb 13 - 11:53 AM ..over your heads........ GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 23 Feb 13 - 08:54 AM Well said, Capt'n... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: kendall Date: 23 Feb 13 - 06:33 AM It's a dirty bird that beshits its own nest. That's us folks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bert Date: 23 Feb 13 - 12:57 AM Thanks for the map Bobad. How many of those pipelines leak? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Songwronger Date: 23 Feb 13 - 12:38 AM The Republicans will make him approve it because he's a black man. We all know that's what it comes down to. They're racist and they make him do things like this. And if you think he's a tool of investment capital, then you're racist too. You can't frame any discussion about Obama in any other terms. If you do, you're racist. So get this topic back on track. "Will Obama approve the XL pipeline because Republicans are Racist?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 23 Feb 13 - 12:17 AM All those who think Obama will not sign off on it, raise your hands. All those who think a true liberal would NEVER approve it, raise your hands.... ...then think about it. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 22 Feb 13 - 09:47 PM Or read what I lasted posted... Old thinking, Q, old thinking... Like last century... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 22 Feb 13 - 09:30 PM Frac away, boys, enjoy! Fifty years to so-called "clean energy". The U.S. is covered by a network of old, tired pipelines leading to the Gulf coast and the major refineries. The Keystone will lead to the closure of some of these. A diversion away from the Ogalalla and the Sand Hills, approved by Nebraska. Portions of the Keystone are already up and carrying. The bitumen sands of Alberta-Saskatchewan hold an estimated 60 years of U.S. oil needs. The Kearl mega-billion project starts moving product next year, regardless of Keystone completion. http://www.imperialoil.ca/Canada-English/operations_sands. This is just one of the new projects going online. If not to the U.S., to the Pacific and China. The Keystone Project is the logical solution for the U.S. and the industrial growth of the States. Otherwise surrender to China, India, South Korea and Indonesia. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 22 Feb 13 - 07:13 PM Yes, as Don has pointed out, we have the technology to get beyond the Big Oil model for our lives which are all about Big $$$ for Big Oil... Screw Big Oil!!! The same people who want the pipeline hate: ...alternative energy sources... ...renewables.... ...energy efficient cars... ...mass transit... ...urban planning that promotes less use of energy... I mean, let's get real here... There is a pattern here of all the same old, same old rich white people wanting to run the show and risk the health of the country, it's people and its future... These are the Koch brothers and the Dick Cheneys and the Halliburtons... I'm tired of being ***ruled*** by stupid old white men... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,999 Date: 22 Feb 13 - 07:05 PM If the shoe don't fit don't wear it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 22 Feb 13 - 07:05 PM There have been more off shore permits under Obama in the last 4 years than there were under the last 4 years of the Bush administration, pdq... Your bangin' on Obama ain't the issue here... What is at issue is the safety of the nation and not making Dick Cheney, or you, happy... I've brought up Kansas City because it's the largest city that the oil will get to... You have talked about these "valves" that will minimize any spill... I asked you if you were prepared to advocate a valve every mile??? No answer... Do you have any idea what 40,000, 50,000, maybe 100,000 gallons of this stuff would do to Kansas City??? It would shut it down... It would be like a horror movie... The water supply would be history... It's ability to treat sewage would be history... Kansas City would, in essence, be history... This can happen and I predict right here and now that if this pipeline is built something along this ***will*** happen... There's almost no way it can't... And the further south you go the more and more population centers will be at risk... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Don Firth Date: 22 Feb 13 - 07:02 PM ". . . stop driving your fucking cars, SUVs, pickups so much and it will be less of a problem. Cut back on your electric toothbrushes, hair dryers, electric can openers, air conditioners—" We own a 14 year old Toyota Corolla whose gas tank we fill with an eye-dropper, with about 31,000 miles on the clock, no SUVs or pickups. My wife's and my toothbrushes are of the hand-cranked variety, Barbara dries her hair with a towel, I don't have much hair to dry, we don't own an electric can opener, again using the hand-cranked variety, we don't own an air conditioner—" Most of our friends are the kind of folks who walk a lot or take the bus, some of them own Toyota Priuses (hybrids), and one just bought a Smart Car. You plug it in. About the only thing that would tax the system even less would be a pair of roller skates. Vote NO on the Keystone pipeline. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: bobad Date: 22 Feb 13 - 06:53 PM North America pipelines map |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: pdq Date: 22 Feb 13 - 06:43 PM The oil will go to refineries that are already built in Texas and maybe Louisiana. Many of them are running below capacity due to the Obama moritorium on oil drilling in the Gulf. These folks are probably good union boys who have families to take care of. The oil from tar sands in Alberta is supposed to be pretty ugly stuff, but US refineries still pay market price for Venezuela crude that has about 7% gasoline and is as thick as mud. High quality Texas crude is over 30% gasoline. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 22 Feb 13 - 06:42 PM I don't see this as a done deal... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: gnu Date: 22 Feb 13 - 06:30 PM Refinery. Once again... third time. That just don't make $ sense. The physical distribution analysis just don't add up in $$$. How ya gonna get it to market? Ya gonna fill Super Bees with gas in Alberta and drive em ta Texas? Nuh uh. Besides.... it's simple engineering. Big spill problem... build something that will NOT leak. It ain't rocket science... it's political science. Even *I* could design it and I am just a Silly Engineer (major earthquakes, asteroids and other bitches of nature void in this offer). The problem is the spineless politicians that will not.... VERY SIMPLY... require the oil industry to do it right. I still say there is GONNA be a pipeline. Whose backyard it ends up in is up to big oil... $$$ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,999 Date: 22 Feb 13 - 06:26 PM Some of you are idealistic enough to think we are going to have any say in this. I'm too friggin' old or jaded to believe that anymore. I think it's a done deal--was when that Cheney was up at the oil sands with Harper. A refinery is a multi-lotsa money project. We have refineries in Edmonton, a place just north of Edmonton the name of which I've forgot, Calgary, Norman Wells, I think Red Deer and likely other places of which I'm not aware. But refineries are setup to handle certain grades of oil. I guess they can't handle it. For those pissed of at Canada, stop driving your fucking cars, SUVs, pickups so much and it will be less of a problem. Cut back on your electric toothbrushes, hair dryers, electric can openers, air conditioners--but you all know this and have no intent to do that. Goddamn spare me. You are a greedy nation in terms of your energy needs. Pressure your damned politicians, all you can, and stop bitchin' at us. We've been fucked over more by the USA than we ever fucked the USA over. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 22 Feb 13 - 06:25 PM Frac away boys! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 22 Feb 13 - 06:18 PM Here's another fact to chew on... I have heard people who know what they are talking about saying that the world is 2 lousy inches of top soil away from starving... It's bad enough to risk water but to risk water and top soil is, ahhhhh.... ...very short sighted and downright stupid... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bert Date: 22 Feb 13 - 06:10 PM You are right in many things Bobert. Also, why can't the USA build a refinery at the border? You could probably get major support from the representatives from the State where the pipeline enters the USA. North Dakota, is it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Don Firth Date: 22 Feb 13 - 05:42 PM As I understand it, the Keystone pipeline runs over the Oglala aquifer. A huge amount of American agriculture—the food we eat—depends on the water pumped up from the aquifer for irrigation. An oil spill there would be a disaster of major proportions. Bobert has the right of it. ". . . why Canada doesn't build a refinery and ship out usable product rather than nasty, dirty raw material?" Among other measures, there are lots of petitions out there to be signed. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: gnu Date: 22 Feb 13 - 05:39 PM I weighed in at 5:00 PM. It just don't make sense. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 22 Feb 13 - 05:30 PM Yes, I know..not exactly the 'Great Plains', but flat land as opposed to going over the Rockies. When I first typed it, I typed 'plains'..but changed it to 'Great Plains' right before I hit 'Submit Message'..you are correct. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 22 Feb 13 - 05:12 PM One problem is, GFinS, is that the proposed pipeline doesn't exactly run thru the great plains... It runs on the eastern edge where there are lots of major cities... I pointed out Kansas City for one since my parents used to live there and I know it fairly well... It ain't a one-light hick town... A major spill there would make Katrina look like a pleasant day at the beach... As for the "Both Side Shuffle"??? BS... 100% of Republicans are for the pipeline... Maybe 10% of the Dems... If that ain't proof that your off key then nothing will... You remind me of a band-mate who used to always insist he was in tune when he wasn't... This was before everyone had electric tuners... Me thinks that every time you play the "Both Side Shuffle" yer a little flatter than the last time... BTW, no one wants to weigh in on why Canada doesn't build a refinery and ship out usable product rather than nasty, dirty raw material??? Something very messed up here... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: gnu Date: 22 Feb 13 - 05:00 PM "If a pipeline is designed and built to American Standards there is absolutely no reason for it to leak." Canuck Standards are equal or better. On damn near every page. The NBC and CSA are more stringent and we require a minimum of the US equivalent codes to ensure materials and methods at least meet US standards just as a "cover yer ass". We also got ISO up the ass. "Why doesn't Canada build refineries closer to these wells???" $ Nuff said. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 22 Feb 13 - 04:38 PM Here's my 'prior post'..Bobert, you may(?) like this! 999: "If Canada and the Chinese are so interested in having a pipe line why not run it westward thru Canada which doesn't have major population centers dependent on clean water???" Linking up to the existing lines, down the Great Plains would be easier, cheaper, and more safe that going west over the Rockies. there is a mutual benefit for all parties concerned to save the costs.and time. Just like: As I posted before, Henry Kissinger, in 1979, under the Carter Administration made a trade agreement with Saudi Arabia, that if they would buy or Treasury bonds, we would buy their oil. Saudi Arabia, happens to be one of our nation's largest debt holders (2nd or 3rd, I think). I am believing that much of the Mid-East war problems, are being allowed, and/or 'sponsored', to bring the region into an untenable, unreliable source of our oil..THEREFORE...next logical choice..drill here, and blow off the debt owed to the 'soon to be Defunct' Saudi Regime, to whom the promises were made. I think Jordan will see problems first, though. ...and who wins?..The oil corporations and the banks, to whom the money is owed. Where does the oil go?..To China, the other big holder of debt...along with, believe this or not, Mexico. Now this is what I posted about two years ago..and every day that goes by, I see it taking shape.... ...and Bobert, if this is true...it really IS both parties..owned by the folks, that you've been NOT blaming....for corrupting both parties. GfS P.S. Mudcat Forum, by the way, has been doing some of the hottest exchanges and stuff, on the web..in regards to this and a couple other subjects...wouldn't be surprised if it didn't get even more notoriety. 'Viva El Mudcat!' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 22 Feb 13 - 04:35 PM Fracking is frackin' stupid... Here we are told that the next big war will be fought over water so what do we do??? Take perfectly good clean water, mix a bunch of secret chemicals into it and pump it down in the ground where the rest of the good clean water is??? This is dumber than leech treatments... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 22 Feb 13 - 04:34 PM Hmmm...my prior post disappeared..too bad! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 22 Feb 13 - 04:32 PM ..Oh, and I forgot..one of the promises included that we would not drill much here..the cover story was given to 'environmental issues'..but that was NEVER the truth..but it was 'given' to the 'liberal left environmentalists..so they could 'claim a 'victory and ally' in Carter and his administration. So now the 'so-called' left gets 'new concessions'...The environmental issue as raised by Bobert, and many others, will be a 'talking point argument' used, but that would only be used to maintain the illusion that it was ever a 'concern'. Just for public consumption. Meanwhile, the 'right' blames the 'left' and so on and so forth..back and forth...and the banks laugh all their way through the capital! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: kendall Date: 22 Feb 13 - 04:29 PM Fracking is worse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 22 Feb 13 - 04:10 PM I'm doing what I can down here, Brucie... I have written several letters to the newspaper and written my Congress people and if I hear of a major demonstration I'll be there, too... Here's another idea: Why doesn't Canada build refineries closer to these wells??? It's crazy to pump that much raw material that is so dirty... Refine it there and use it there... Back to who gets the oil... If the US want's some at the end of the pipeline then it has to bid against China for it... That's okay... What isn't okay is for the US to gamble the safety of its water supply just to get an opportunity to bid on Canadian oil... That's messed up... As for valves being shut down??? Yeah, they can be, pdq... If you do the math and you had a spill of what is held in even one mile of pipe that is enough oil to shut down a city like Kansas City... What??? You gonna put a valve every 100 feet??? Even at 100 feet you are dealing with 1000's of gallons of dirty oil... No thanks... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bert Date: 22 Feb 13 - 03:33 PM Bobert, you are right that the spillage rate is far too great. There is no need for any well designed pipeline to leak and, except for terrorist attacks and plane crashes I don't think that any leak is acceptable. But still, of the worst ten spills ever, only only is from a pipeline and that was a poorly maintained line in a third world country. Even with current spillage rates a pipeline is safer than a tanker. If a pipeline is designed and built to American Standards there is absolutely no reason for it to leak. One of the reasons for poor quality manufacturing is the use of non union labor. When I was a Boilermaker, welders had to have a five year apprenticeship and needed to pass a rigorous test before they could work on high pressure pipes and vessels. Employers try to cut costs by using cheaper labor and materials. The current trend of union bashing has reduced manufacturing quality throughout the country to the level of that in third world countries. We have the choice as a country to either improve manufacturing quality or to change American Standards to reflect current manufacturing techniques. American Standards were developed when America had good quality workmanship available, this is no longer true now that manufacturers are using the cheapest labor that they can find. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,999 Date: 22 Feb 13 - 02:41 PM "If Canada and the Chinese are so interested in having a pipe line why not run it westward thru Canada which doesn't have major population centers dependent on clean water???" Bobert, if the US doesn't want the oil it will go to China. Thing is, we are fighting the pipeline. You should be, too. You don't want it in the US, fine. Tell your government. Those of us who don't want it in Canada are telling ours. Enough of this bullshit. You sure as fuck don't mind Canadian electricity and you didn't give a shit what it did to the James Bay area. But poor old USA might have a damaged pipeline and all of a sudden it's the Bad Canadians? Fawk. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: pdq Date: 22 Feb 13 - 02:01 PM Modern oil pipelines have check valves and automatic shut-off mechanisms. Even if a terrorist blows a hole in a working pipeline, only the anount of oil between between valves can escape, and pumps are automatically turned off. Emergency alerts go out by radio to repair crews who are dispatched almost immediatley. As Bert said, the proposed pipeline is the safest way possible. If we (US) don't allow this oil to come here, the Canadians will be forced to construct a very expensive, destructive and dangerous line to the West Coast, and the oill wil go to China. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: gnu Date: 22 Feb 13 - 01:44 PM "... lease out their land..." Not in Canada. Westerly... that got effectively nixed. Long story. I assume the easterly option is a bargaining chip. Whether it's used in USA or China or both. This is just about anywhere ya wanna look.... The first Keystone tar sands pipeline, constructed less than a year ago, has sprung its twelfth leak, spilling up to 2,100 gallons of raw tar sands crude oil in Kansas on May 29th when a pipeline fitting around a pressure transmitter failed. This comes just three weeks after a broken pipe fitting on Keystone resulted in a 60' geyser of tar sands crude, spewing 21,000 gallons in North Dakota. Surely this appalling record of spills should send a message to the State Department as it goes through the permitting process for a second tar sands pipeline – Keystone XL – by the same company that we need better pipeline safety assessments and regulations in place before building another tar sands pipeline through sensitive U.S. lands and waters. We have an agency that handles pipeline safety – the Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). They should be making the assessment of the safety of diluted bitumen pipelines a priority. The brief operating history of the Keystone pipeline provides more evidence that our conventional pipeline design regulations are inadequate for pipelines moving corrosive raw tar sands, or diluted bitumen, at high pressure. After all, the company claims that Keystone I was built with "state of the art" design features and was predicted to spill no more than once every seven years. We're now at twelve leaks in less than a year of operation. Most troubling of all is that fact that after all of these warnings, State Department is still fast tracking the environmental review of Keystone XL – a project that would build the largest raw tar sand pipeline in the world through the Ogallala Aquifer – before our pipeline safety regulators evaluate and address the risks of diluted bitumen pipelines. Given what we already know, blindly rushing the construction of a raw tar sands pipeline through the largest source of ground water in the United States is folly. The findings of a formal investigation by the North Dakota Public Service Commission (PSC) of the 21,000 gallon Keystone leak provided yet more evidence that safety regulations for conventional pipelines are inadequate for high pressure raw tar sands pipelines. The report found that the pipeline failure was not due to "any material or manufacturing deficiency" and that the "chemical compositions, mechanical properties and microstructure" met minimum design requirements for conventional pipelines. The report went on to state that the work required to prevent similar failures included 1) using stronger, thicker materials and 2) installing engineered pipe supports. In other words, conventional pipeline standards aren't good enough for this pipeline. TransCanada has spun these spills as a great opportunity to show how well their leak detection system works. While it's true that Keystone operators have had a lot of experience dealing with spills over the last year, there are some discrepancies in the company's account of its leak detection record. After Keystone's 21,000 gallon spill in North Dakota, TransCanada claimed that the pipeline was shut down nine minutes after the leak occurred. However, the PSC investigation revealed that the leak occurred at 3:51 AM and the pipeline was not shut down until 4:35 AM – which makes for a pipeline shut down time of forty-four minutes. And that was with the help of a third party, as the investigation notes that Keystone operators were still validating the leak detection data when a local landowner called to report that a spill was visible above the treeline. The State Department doesn't seem to be taking these concerns seriously. Despite Keystone I's short and troubled history, the State Department included some spill projections for Keystone XL in its Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) that border on the ridiculous. For instance, the State Department predicts that 1,980 mile Keystone XL pipeline will have a leak due to flooding and washout once every 87,800 years. In another unprecedented prediction, it expects an incident on the pipeline due to corrosion once every 3,400 years. This can't be the scientific examination of the dangers presented by Keystone XL that President Obama promised. The fact that the State Department believed that these estimates, or any methodology that would produce these estimates, were credible enough to include in a SDEIS indicates how little attention and expertise they're bringing to the environmental review process. It also suggests that our pipeline safety regulators are not paying attention to the environmental review process or the potential risks posed by Keystone XL. The Keystone XL pipeline has serious risks which deserve serious consideration. The State Department should not be fast tracking this project before the pipeline safety regulators at the Department of Transportation have the chance to take a close look at the safety issues of diluted bitumen. And the Department of Transportation needs to engage in this before we build a disaster prone pipeline through the Ogallala Aquifer – Secretary LaHood claims that pipeline safety is a priority for his Department. Doing basic due diligence on tar sands pipelines like Keystone XL would be a good place to start. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 22 Feb 13 - 01:19 PM Keystone/TransCanada have already said that it expects 11 significant leaks over the first 50 years... Researchers at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln have crunched the numbers and say the number will be 9 times that... That means 2 major oil spills every year... As for pipelines being safe??? An Exxon/Mobile pipeline developed a leak and it spilled 40,000 gallons of crude into the Yellowstone River in Montana... Montana is one thing... Kansas City, Mo. and Oklahoma City are quite another... A major spill in or around either might result in those cities having to be evacuated... As for driving less??? The way I see it is that the US would have to out-bid the Chinese for the first drop of this oil... Good luck... If Canada and the Chinese are so interested in having a pipe line why not run it westward thru Canada which doesn't have major population centers dependent on clean water??? Where am I wrong here, Bert??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bert Date: 22 Feb 13 - 12:54 PM Pipelines are about the safest way of transporting oil. Of the top ten oil spills only one have been due to a pipeline spill and that was with a poorly maintained pipeline in Nigeria. If they don't build a pipeline, then the oil will be shipped by road and sea; both of which carry a greater risk of spillage. Most of the pollution from oil comes from exhaust pipes and chimneys. If you wish to cut back on pollution, cut back on using your vehicle and your heating and your electricity. If you want to minimize the risk of spillage, unfortunately a pipeline is the way to go. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,999 Date: 22 Feb 13 - 12:39 PM Good article but long read. Probably no point linking it. However . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 22 Feb 13 - 09:01 AM I've always been right on Keystone, GfinS... This has been my position going back as long as this pipeline has been an issue... BTW, it is a given that this pipeline will leak sometime and somewhere and this shale oil is the dirtiest of oil so when it does leak it is going to effect the ground water in those areas... It's a terrible deal... Here's the thing that bothers me the most about letting the Koch brothers, Dick Cheney and their buddies write energy policy... When we do have the "big one" - a catastrophe so large that no one ever imagined - then what??? Who's going to pay for the clean up and for the expense of moving perhaps an entire region out of a disaster zone??? The Koch brothers??? Big Oil??? No, it will end up on me and you... Think Katrina and multiply by perhaps a 1000... Think this can't happen??? It not only can but more than likely will happen at some point in time if Keystone is built... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,999 Date: 22 Feb 13 - 08:54 AM The decision will likely be made in June--or so I read. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 22 Feb 13 - 01:04 AM Bobert: "The pipeline leaves the US at risk while not guaranteeing US one drop of oil... Seems like a bad deal for US..." Bobert, You are waking up!! You are absolutely right on! 'Hope and Change'.... GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Will Obama approve the XL pipeline? From: Bobert Date: 21 Feb 13 - 04:39 PM He might if he gets some serious concessions from the Republicans but they would have to very serious concessions... I mean, let's get real here... The pipeline leaves the US at risk while not guaranteeing US one drop of oil... Seems like a bad deal for US... It would be a bad deal even if we were guaranteed a portion of the oil... The winners here: China, Canada and the folks who lease out their land for the pipeline... Everyone else??? Losers... B~ |
